Ministers and MEPs at odds over TENs

SKIRMISHES in the conciliation battle between member states and the European Parliament over the Trans-European Networks have revealed little room for manoeuvre in the central dispute over whether MEPs should have a say in choosing priority projects.

European Voice

5/15/96, 5:00 PM CET

Updated 4/12/14, 1:15 AM CET

The two sides also remain at odds over how far environmental assessments should extend, although Commission officials are optimistic of finding a compromise acceptable to both.

It came as no great surprise to anyone that the first formal conciliation meeting last month – the final step in the co-decision procedure – saw the two sides repeating entrenched positions.

“No one’s going to give away his negotiating position at such an early stage,” commented one participant.

More progress is likely when smaller groups from the three institutions gather together informally next Tuesday (21 May) to prepare for the next formal session a week later.

On the environmental question, the Commission has suggested that assessments be included in the TENs guidelines, so that ‘corridor analyses’ can be carried out on whole transport projects. At present, studies are limited to basic Environmental Impact Assessments carried out by member states on sectionsof projects within their own borders.

But ministers remain nervous about writing environmental concerns into the TENs guidelines, while MEPs want to see a ‘strategic environmental assessment’ for the whole network.

Early discussions have also revealed crucial differences between member states which have until now been disguised by the need for unity in reaching a common position in Council.

Those countries strongly opposed to giving the Parliament too great an influence over TENs planning decisions are working hard to maintain a united front with those anxious to bolster environmental standards.

Even bigger problems surround the vexed question of the Parliament’s call for an annex to be added to the guidelines giving MEPs a central role in setting priority projects.

Ministers are fundamentally opposed to this on principle, insisting that the setting of priorities does not fall under theco-decision procedure and is not a matter for the Parliament.

Commission officials have suggested making the existing 14 priority projects an ‘indicative list’, leaving the door open for adjustments to be made depending on how projects developed and how much financing becomes available. However, a parliamentary spokesman warned: “We won’t discuss flexibility on the priorities until the Council gives a signal that it’s prepared to play along.”Signs of a willingness to compromise are only likely to emerge as the six-week deadline set for agreement looms closer.